For all the fun I've poked at Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, he's spot on when it comes to demanding federal reimbursement for illegal immigrants locked up in Texas (and other states') prisons and jails.

"Nearly 90 percent of Texas counties are affected by this unnecessary burden," he wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama last week. "This largely unfunded mandate cannot continue unchecked."

Keep in mind that Dewhurst is frantically working to find wedge issues that will distinguish him from his three challengers in the Republican primary for the lieutenant governor's seat. Too often, this battle pushes candidates into the most extreme positions on key issues as they vie to out-conservatize each other to win the tea party vote. This might be one of those issues, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

I've long contended that the federal government can't have it both ways. On the one hand, it tells state and local governments that they cannot pass laws that usurp or interfere with federal immigration enforcement. Since illegal immigration begins with the unauthorized penetration of a federal border, the issue constitutionally falls squarely within the federal government's jurisdiction. That means local governments like Farmers Branch cannot pass laws requiring landlords to verify the immigration status of their tenants as a means of deterring illegal immigrants from living in the city. It limits how far Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona can go with his campaign to chase every last immigrant from his territory.

Fine. Constitutionally, that's the way it should be. But that also means it's the federal government's job to adequately enforce its laws to protect local and state government's from illegal immigrants who commit jail-able offenses. The fact that they are in the country illegally is the reason they are able to break other laws, get arrested and wind up in jails or prisons. The failure of the federal government to do its job means state and local governments inherit the burden posed by criminal illegal immigrants.

That's not fine. It means local taxpayers must foot the bill for the federal government's failure to do its job. We have a right to reimbursement. It's our money. Of course, so are the federal dollars that would reimburse us. But it's a question of fair distribution of the burden. Washington state or Wyoming or Iowa, with far fewer illegal immigrants than Texas, don't have to bear anywhere near the financial burden that Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico must bear for housing criminal illegal immigrants.

As the Texas Tribune reported, citing state jail commission data, Texas county jails spent more than $156.6 million housing more than 131,000 undocumented immigrants with between October 2011 and September 2013. Of the 245 jailsstatewide, Harris County reported had to bear the highest burden, housing more than 30,000 undocumented immigrants at a cost of more than $49.6 million.

Why should Harris County taxpayers be forced to foot that bill? Dewhurst is absolutely correct to push this issue. If Congress can't get its act together on comprehensive immigration reform, it at least should own up to the federal government's responsibility and make sure that local and state taxpayers aren't left holding the bill simply because of their state's proximity to the U.S. border.